A critical analysis of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services policy in England, 2000‐2015

Policy in Child and Adolescent Mental Health (CAMH) in England has undergone radical changes in the last 15 years, with far reaching implications for funding models, access to services and service delivery. Using corpus analysis and critical discourse analysis, we explore how childhood, mental health, and CAMHS are constituted in 15 policy documents, 9 pre‐2010, and 6 post 2010. We trace how these constructions have changed over time, and consider the practice implications of these changes. We identify how children’s distress is individualised, through medicalising discourses and shifting understandings of the relationship between socioeconomic context and mental health. This is evidenced in a shift from seeing children’s mental health challenges as produced by social and economic inequities, to a view that children’s mental health must be addressed early to prevent future socio‐economic burden. We consider the implications CAMHS policies for the relationship between children, families, mental health services and the state. The paper concludes by exploring how concepts of ‘parity of esteem’ and ‘stigma reduction’ may inadvertently exacerbate the individualisation of children’s mental health.

Are mental health services getting better at responding to abuse, assault and neglect?

Objective To determine whether staff responses to abuse disclosures had improved since the introduction of a trauma policy and training programme. Method The files of 250 clients attending four New Zealand mental health centres were audited. Results There was a significant improvement, compared to an audit prior to the introduction of the policy and training, in the proportion of abuse cases included in formulations, and, to a lesser extent, in treatment plans. There was no significant improvement in the proportion referred for relevant treatment, which remained at less than 25% across abuse categories. The proportion of neglect disclosures responded to was significantly lower than for abuse cases. Fifty percent of the files in which abuse/neglect was recorded noted whether the client had been asked about previous disclosure, and 22% noted whether the client thought there was any connection between the abuse/neglect and their current problems. Less than 1% of cases were reported to legal authorities. People diagnosed with a psychotic disorder were significantly less likely to be responded to appropriately. Conclusion Future training may need to focus on responding well to neglect and people diagnosed with psychosis, on making treatment referrals, and on initiating discussions about reporting to authorities.